In Amerika There Will Never be a Real Debate
God help them if Obama and Romney ever had to participate in a real debate about a real issue at the Oxford Union. They would be massacred.
The "debates" revealed that not only the candidates but also the entire country is completely tuned out to every real problem and dangerous development. For example, you would never know that US citizens can now be imprisoned and executed without due process. All that is required to terminate the liberty and life of an American citizen by his own government is an unaccountable decision somewhere in the executive branch.
No doubt that Americans, if they think of this at all, believe that it will only happen to terrorists who deserve it. But as no evidence or due process is required, how would we know that it only happens to terrorists? Can we really trust a government that has started wars in seven countries on the basis of falsehoods? If the US government will lie about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to invade a country, why won't it lie about who is a terrorist?
America needs a debate about how we can be made more safe by removing the constitutional protection of due process. If the power of government is not limited by the Constitution, are we ruled by Caesar? The Founding Fathers did not think we could trust a caesar with our safety? What has changed that we can now trust a caesar?
If we are under such a terrorist threat that the Constitution has to be suspended or replaced by unaccountable executive action, how come all the alleged terrorist cases are sting operations organized by the FBI? In eleven years there has not been a single case in which the "terrorist" had the initiative!
In the eleven years since 9/11, acts of domestic terrorism have been miniscule if they even exist. What justifies the enormous and expensive Department of Homeland Security? Why does Homeland Security have military-equipped Special Response Teams with armored vehicles? Who are the targets of these militarized units? If eleven years of US government murder, maiming, and displacement of millions of Muslims hasn't provoked massive acts of domestic terrorism, why is Homeland Security creating a domestic armed force of its own? Why are there no congressional hearings and no public discussion? How can a government whose budget is deep in the red afford a second military force with no defined and Constitutionally legal purpose?
What is Homeland Security's motivation in creating a Homeland Youth? Is the new FEMA Corps a disguise for a more sinister purpose, a Hitler Youth, as Internet sites suggest? Are the massive ammunition purchases by Homeland Security related to the raising of a nationwide corps of 18- to 24-year-olds? How can so much be going on in front of our eyes with no questions asked?
Why did not Romney ask Obama why he is working to overturn the federal court's ruling that US citizens cannot be subject to indefinite detention in violation of the US Constitution? Is it because Romney and his neoconservative advisers agree with Obama and his advisers? If so, then why is one tyrant better than another?
Why has the US constructed a network of detainment camps, for which it is hiring "internment specialists"?
Why does the US Army now have a policy for "establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations"?
Here is Rachel Maddow's report on how Obama criticizes the neoconservative Bush/Cheney regime for violations of the US Constitution and US statutory law and then proposes the same thing himself.
How did the presidential debates avoid the fact of Predator Drones flying over us here in the domestic United States of America? What is the purpose of this? Why are the smallest police forces in the most remote of locations being equipped with armored cars? I have seen them. In small lilly-white communities north of Atlanta, Georgia, communities of sub-million dollar MacMansions have militarized police with armored cars and automatic weapons. SWAT teams in full military gear are everywhere. What is it all about? These small, semi-rural areas will never see a terrorist or experience a hostage situation. Yet they are all armed to the teeth. They are so heavily armed that they could be sent into combat against the Third Reich or the Red Army.
Any such questions run afoul of the assumption of America's moral perfection. No such debate will ever happen. But if "it is the economy, stupid," why is there no economic debate?
Last month the Federal Reserve announced QE3. If QE1 and QE2 did not work, why does anyone, including the Federal Reserve chairman, think that QE3 will work?
Yet, the utterly irrational financial markets, which haven't a clue about anything, were overjoyed at QE3. This can only be because what rules the equity market is propaganda, spin and disinformation, not facts. The vaunted stock market is incapable of making any correct decision. The decisions are made by the fools in the market operating on a short-run basis. The only safe path to take is to run with the lemmings. This strategy insures that a portfolio manager is always in the middle of his peers and, therefore, he doesn't lose clients.
How wonderful it would have been for Obama and Romney to have confronted in a real debate how QE3, designed to help insolvent "banks too big to fail," can help households operating, with two earners, on real incomes of 45 years ago, which is where the current real median household income stands.
How does saving a bank, designated as "too big to fail," help the family whose jobs or main job has been exported to China or India in order to maximize corporate profits, executive performance bonuses and shareholders' capital gains?
Obviously, the working population of the US has been sacrificed to the profits of the mega-rich.
An appropriate debate question is: Why has the livelihood of working Americans been sacrificed to the profits of the mega-rich?
No such question will ever be asked in a "presidential debate."
In the 21st century, US citizens became nonentities. They are brutalized by the police whose incomes their taxes pay. They, for protesting some injustice or for no cause at all, are beaten, arrested, tasered and even murdered. The police, paid by the public, beat up paralyzed people in wheel chairs, frame those who call them for help against criminals, taser grandmothers and small children and shoot down in cold blood unarmed citizens who have done nothing except lose control of themselves, either through alcohol, drugs, or rage.
Brainwashed Americans pay large taxes at every level of government for protection against gratuitous violence but what their taxes support is gratuitous violence against themselves. Every American, except for the small number of mega-rich who control Washington, can be arrested and dispossessed, both liberty and property, on the basis of nothing but an allegation of a member of the executive branch who might want the accused's wife, girlfriend, property, or to settle a score, or to exterminate a rival, or to score against a high school, college, or business rival.
In America today, law serves the powerful, not justice. In effect, there is no law, and there is no justice. Only unaccountable power.
What is the point of a vote when the outcome is the same? Both candidates represent the interests of Israel, not the interests of the US. Both candidates represent the interests of the military/security complex, agribusiness, the offshoring corporations, the suppression of unions and workers, the total demise of civil liberty and the US Constitution, which is in the way of unbridled executive power.
In the US today, the power of money rules. Nothing else is in the equation. Why vote to lend your support to the continuation of your own exploitation? Every time Americans vote it is a vote for their own obliteration.
This article originally appeared at www.paulcraigroberts.org, republished here with author's permission (copyright Paul Craig Roberts).
Posted by gsb on 10/27/12 03:36 PM
Wake up Mr. Roberts!
The tough questions are being asked in a presidential debate, just not the official/controlled debates. There was a 3rd party debate on Tuesday, broadcast by CSPAN and hosted by Larry King. They discussed the failed war on drugs, NDAA, illegal wars, drone killing, crony capitalism and everything else that Obama and Romeny would never touch.
Watch it here: Click to view link
The next one between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will be this Tuesday evening, broadcast by RT. This is a perfect example of what Bucky Fuller was talking about... not trying to change a corrupt system, but instead refusing participation and building up better systems around it.
So instead of complaining about the obviously exclusive and corrupt debates, turn the channel, get online and watch the REAL debates taking place!
Posted by Bobby7 on 10/25/12 06:51 AM
THE DAY OF DEBATING IS OVER
Why isn't the CFR in the History Books?
Hardly one person in 1000 ever heard of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
The Council on Foreign Relations was formally established in Paris in 1919 along with its British Counterpart the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute of International Affairs can trace their roots back to a secret organization founded and funded by Cecil Rhodes, who became fabulously wealthy by exploiting the people of South Africa. Rhodes is the father of Apartheid.
The Council on Foreign Relations was founded by a group of American and British imperialists and racists intent on ruling the world. Many of the American members were American intelligence officers that belonged to the first American Intelligence Agency -- THE INQUIRY. Many of the British members were British Intelligence Agents. THE INQUIRY and its members, who included such notable Americans as Col. Edward Mandel House, Walter Lippmann, Isaiah Bowman, and James Shotwell, wrote most of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points.
The CFR/RIIA method of operation is simple -- they control public opinion. They keep the identity of their group secret. They learn the likes and dislikes of influential people. They surround and manipulate them into acting in the best interest of the CFR/RIIA.
The Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs are adept at using the media to create massive psycho-political operations used to manipulate public opinion. The psycho-political operations are often designed to create tensions between different groups of people. The object is to keep the world in a state of perpetual tension and warfare to maximize profits from CFR/RIIA munition, medicine, media, energy, and food businesses.
The CFR has only 3000 members yet they control over three-quarters of the nations wealth. The CFR runs the State Department and the CIA. The CFR has placed 100 CFR members in every Presidential Administration since Woodrow Wilson. They work together to misinform and disinform the President to act in the best interest of the CFR not the best interest of the American People. At least five Presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton) have been members of the CFR. The CFR has packed every Supreme Court with CFR insiders. Three CFR members (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sandra Day O'Connor) sit on the Supreme Court. The CFR's British Counterpart is the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The members of these groups profit by creating tension and hate. Their targets include British and American citizens.
The 100 CFR members that surround the president are the "Secret Team." The "Secret Team" help carry out psycho-political operations scripted by CFR members in the state department and the Intelligence Organizations. The psycho-political operations are coordinated by a group of Council on Foreign Relations members called the Special Group.
The Special Group evolved from the Psychological Strategy Board.
President Truman issued an executive order establishing the Psychological Strategy Board (PSB). The Board was run by CFR members Gordon Gray and Henry Kissinger. The PSB has close ties to the State Department and Intelligence Organizations. The purpose of the PSB was to co-ordinate psycho-political operations. Many of those operations were focused at Americans. The people became wary of the Psychological Strategy Board. Eisenhower issued an executive order changing its name to the Operations Coordination Board (OCB). The OCB was a bigger more powerful PSB. Gray and Kissinger ran the OCB too. President Kennedy abolished the OCB. It became an ad hoc committee called the "Special Group," which exists today. The PSB/OCB/Special Group always has CFR members running and sitting on it. Since the Special Group was not formed by Executive Order it cannot be abolished.
On September 12, 1939, the Council on Foreign Relations began to take control of the Department of State. On that day Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Editor of Foreign Affairs, and Walter H. Mallory, Executive Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, paid a visit to the State Department. The Council proposed forming groups of experts to proceed with research in the general areas of Security, Armament, Economic, Political, and Territorial problems. The State Department accepted the proposal. The project (1939-1945) was called Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies. Hamilton Fish Armstrong was Executive director.
In February 1941 the CFR officially became part of the State Department. The Department of State established the Division of Special Research. It was organized just like the Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies project. It was divided into Economic, Political, Territorial, and Security Sections. The Research Secretaries serving with the Council groups were hired by the State Department to work in the new division. These men also were permitted to continue serving as Research Secretaries to their respective Council groups. Leo Pasvolsky was appointed Director of Research.
In 1942 the relationship between the Department of State and the Council on Foreign Relations strengthened again. The Department organized an Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policies. The Chairman was Secretary Cordell Hull, the vice chairman, Under Secretary Sumner Wells, Dr. Leo Pasvolsky (director of the Division of Special Research) was appointed Executive Officer. Several experts were brought in from outside the Department. The outside experts were Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies members:
• Hamilton Fish Armstrong
• Isaiah Bowman
• Benjamin V. Cohen
• Norman H. Davis
• James T. Shotwell
In total there were 362 meetings of the War and Peace Studies groups. The meetings were held at Council on Foreign Relations headquarters -- the Harold Pratt house, Fifty-Eight East Sixty-Eighth Street, New York City. The Council's wartime work was confidential.17
In 1944 members of the Council on Foreign Relations The War and Peace Studies Political Group were invited to be active members at the Dumbarton Oaks conference on world economic arrangements. In 1945 these men and members of Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs were active at the San Francisco conference which ensured the establishment of the United Nations.
In 1947 Council on Foreign Relations members George Kennan, Walter Lippmann, Paul Nitze, Dean Achenson, and Walter Krock took part in a psycho-political operation forcing the Marshall Plan on the American public. The PSYOP included an "anonymous" letter credited to a Mr. X, which appeared in the Council on Foreign Relations magazine FOREIGN AFFAIRS. The letter opened the door for the CFR controlled Truman administration to take a hard line against the threat of Soviet expansion. George Kennan was the author of the letter. The Marshall Plan should have been called the Council on Foreign Relations Plan. The so-called Marshall Plan and the ensuing North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) defined the role of the United States in world politics for the rest of the century.
Posted by seer on 10/24/12 10:56 PM
"Brainwashed Americans pay large taxes at every level of government for protection against gratuitous violence but what their taxes support is gratuitous violence against themselves." The author could have used the term "brain dead" as well. To win the election either candidate in his perspective branch of the Republicrat Party must say as little truth as possible and still win the majority of electoral votes which means comparatively few precincts in a few key states. A candidate echoing Ron Paul in regards to military hegemony and its costs to the public would lose for sure as the other Branch would enhance the FEAR of Loss, that Brain dead ignorant Americans easily accept. Thus we get a charade that mimics a high school election of class officers. The irony is that the lies, and fear mongering actually work among the sheepee.
Posted by rossbcan on 10/24/12 02:10 PM
"why then do you say *they* are desperate"
... read the link again. Because, ultimately, THEY will run out of prey / victims (and, the "entitled" will turn on them, because of reneg), and have to directly face those determined to be free of predators. The free, whose survival advantages, particularly ability to CHOOSE to trust, cooperate, honestly trade, be productive is what TROUNCED THEM LAST TIME, leading to the birth of western civilization, now rationalized away, all form, no substance.
No FATE, but what YOU make. You snooze (be apathetic), you lose.
Posted by TimurTheLame on 10/24/12 01:56 PM
" ... are we ruled by Caesar?"
Caesar ruled Rome.
The debate was between Romulus and "Uncle" Remus.
Romulus and Remus were conceived by the god Mars.
Posted by DarbyJie on 10/24/12 01:29 PM
"What will work, is working, whether noticed, acknowleged, or not. The collateral damage in this war of criminals versus reality will be incredible.."
But why then do you say *they* are desperate; surely the unempowered masses are in a far more desperate situation? (We have no stockpiles of survival needs planned to last almost indefinitely, no underground cities to retreat to... :(
Posted by mava on 10/24/12 10:39 AM
Why debate? What is to debate?
You can debate something with your friend, both, having equal positions, both having no desire to enslave another, and both being interested in finding the truth?
But, do you debate anything with a sheep you are getting ready for a barbecue?
Surely, that sheep has an argument with your plans. Still, you do not debate.
The situation in politics is absolutely the same. There are three of us in US, you, me, and my friend. Me and my friend want to bbq you, and you don't want that. We all have equal voting power, so, we beat you easy, every single time.
Why is it you think we should debate something with you?
All those who hope for a political solution, for some sort of debate, believe that everyone is interested in the solution equally. This is a mistake. The majority is interested in watching American Idol while consuming the wealth of the minority. And, they have a perfect tool to do this, - universal suffrage, - weren't you proud of that?
So, again, why debate?
Posted by Libertarian Jerry on 10/24/12 09:14 AM
Excellent post... ..The problem as I see it is twofold. 1. A voting majority likes things just the way they are. These voters don't care about anything evil or wicked that might befall the United States. All these voters care about is that their seats on the government gravy train are secure. As long as the checks keep coming these voters by and large don't have any problem with the status quo. 2nd. Its obvious to any thinking person that the powers behind the scenes,the Elitists and Globalists, have a plan for the deliberate taking down of America and creating a One World Government New World Order. Constitution and Rule of Law be damned. Therefore these Elitists need to control the election process and political paradigm in America. To the Elitists no matter which major party candidate takes the Presidency they,the Elitists, are the real winners.
Posted by scarlett on 10/24/12 09:01 AM
Yes and bullied into the horror by the elite.
Click to view link
Posted by rossbcan on 10/24/12 09:00 AM
PCR: "why does anyone, ... think that QE3 will work?"
They don't. It is an act of desperation, to buy them time, to come up with a "Plan B", to either get "something from nothing" or, cover their sorry asses, which all of natural law is arrayed against, an impossibility.
What will work, is working, whether noticed, acknowleged, or not. The collateral damage in this war of criminals versus reality will be incredible:
Click to view link
Posted by rossbcan on 10/24/12 08:41 AM
PCR: "who is a terrorist"
With no subjective definition, "terror" and thus, "terorist" is in the opinion of the beholder. The greatest "terror" is non-survival. Those who survive by lies, manipulation, abuse of the "people's power", or, in general, predatory behavior have the greatest terror of getting caught, which requires a sane evaluation of the facts, as opposed to a clash of dominant opinions, where "dominant" is incorrectly assumed to mean "with most guns", or, in general, ability to coerce, by using terror against those whom may, by objective appraisal of the facts, be inclined to DISOBEY:
Click to view link